Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the protest of SIAIN Enterprises, Inc. be, as it hereby it is, dismissed and this case, dropped from the records. Both Foreshore Lease Application Nos. (VI-5) 220 and (VI-1) 176 of SIAIN Enterprises, Inc.
Accordingly, the LMB disposed: WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the protest of SIAIN Enterprises, Inc. be, as it hereby it is, dismissed and this case, dropped from the records. Both Foreshore Lease Application Nos. (VI-5) 220 and (VI-1) 176 of SIAIN Enterprises, Inc. and F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. respectively, shall be amended in such a way that SIAIN's application shall cover SEVENTY (70) linear meters of the disputed foreshore adjoining Lot 3309 while F.F. Cruz's application shall cover SIXTY (60) linear meters thereof. Accordingly, both applications shall be give due course in accordance with the provisions of the Public Land Law, otherwise known as Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended. [12] (Underscoring supplied) SIAIN appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), arguing that the LMB: . . . made [a] false assumption of fact when it considered the foreshore area under . . . controversy as reclaimed land; . . . committed a grave error in not considering the preferential right of the riparian owner/littoral owner, . . . to apply for a lease over the foreshore under controversy; [and] . . . erred in awarding sixty (60) linear meters of the foreshore under controversy to [F.F. Cruz]. [13] By Decision [14] of May 6, 1997, then DENR Acting Secretary Antonio G.M. La Viña set aside the LMB Order, the pertinent portions of which decision read: It is blatant error to consider the contested area as reclaimed land as it has no basis in fact, in law and jurisprudence. The area in question is unquestionably a natural foreshore for which various applicants prior to the herein parties have applied. CRUZ's F.L.A. No. (VI-1) 176 itself which was filed on July 7, 1983, long after it had allegedly filled up the area undeniably shows CRUZ's admission that it is a foreshore and not something else. The assumption that the contested area is a reclaimed land runs smack against the provision of Article 5 of the Spanish Law on Waters of August 3, 1866 stating that: "Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission , shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." We cannot find in the records anything to show that a "permission" was ever sought by or granted to, CRUZ for the alleged reclamation of the land in question. x x x x It is by reason of the Director of Lands' erroneous classification of the contested area as "reclaimed" that he awarded 60 linear meters thereof to CRUZ. However, as heretofore discussed, the said area in question is clearly a natural foreshore and SIAIN is correct in claiming it to be so. Hence, the law that applies in this case is Section 32 of Lands Administrative Order No. 7-1 which was issued by the Secretary of the then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources . . . x x x x It is an undisputed fact that SIAIN is the